Natural Resources

Mandatory Composting in San Francisco. Also, Mandatory Birkenstock Purchasing.

|

Remember the '80s, that golden time when a garbage barge cruised from New York to Belize and back, looking for a place to dump its load? What turned out to be a jurisdictional dispute with some bad PR management nonetheless delivered symbolism too good to pass up, and wound up igniting fears that we were running out of space for our trash.

Thus, the vogue for recycling took off. Children everywhere came home from school and nagged their parents to "reuse, reduce, recycle." (Sorry mom, I know that was probably really annoying). Eventually, though, recycling became more like a civic duty and less like a moral imperative. 

But now 1980s fashions are back, and it was only a matter of time before landfills became our enemies again:

Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system, collected scraps will be turned into compost that helps area farms and vineyards flourish. The city eventually wants to eliminate waste at landfills by 2020.

Not to worry, though. The city of San Francisco is on the case! And this time, it's even grosser than rinsing out your tuna cans:

San Francisco this week passed a mandatory composting law that is believed to be the strictest such ordinance in the nation. Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash bins, including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for compost—everything from banana peels to coffee grounds.

Next step: Night soil collection? 

NEXT: Reason.tv: "This is an injustice and I think everyone has gotten the message."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “San Francisco this week passed a mandatory composting law that is believed to be the strictest such ordinance in the nation. Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash bins, including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for compost-everything from banana peels to coffee grounds.”

    That makes me so angry I can’t even type a post about it. Liberals are not your friends and are not nice people.

  2. This is a victory for Big Skunk & Racoon.

  3. For fuckssakes, John, is there anything you won’t shit your pants over?

    Plenty of places have three color coded trash bins already, with the yard waste bin being a de facto compost bin.

  4. (Sorry mom, I know that was probably really annoying)

    KMW – 19 years old?

  5. Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system, collected scraps will be turned into compost. . .

    Hang on a minute. Compost is just decomposed organic material. If decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won’t decomposing in your backyard do the same?

  6. Can anyone direct me to a good study of the utility of recycling?

    The impression I’ve always had is that for anything other than aluminum it’s a net resource/energy waste to bother recycling. Depending somewhat on local conditions. But I’ve never looked at anything rigorous demonstrating that.

  7. “Plenty of places have three color coded trash bins already, with the yard waste bin being a de facto compost bin.”

    And it is a total imposition on people’s freedom and privacy. Fuck you. My garbage, what I eat and what I throw away is none of your damned business. If George Bush wanted to search everyon’s garbage in the name of stopping terrorism, you would go bizerk. But if liberals want to do it in the name of making a meaningless and stupid gesture about global warming, you are a ok. People like you are unworthy of your freedoms. I guess that is why you are losing so many of them. It would be funny if you weren’t taking mine with you.

  8. This is pretty much having your asinine roommate, who thinks he knows everything about the environment despite having no scientific training, dictate your behaviour to you.

    Par for the course for San Francisco then.

  9. John, really? This is the thing that is going to make you go apoplectic today? I mean for one thing, this is San Francisco, so this is probably the least crazy and restrictive thing they have done this week.

  10. I visited PEI (in Canada) last Christmas and was appalled to see that they have four bins. Paper recycling, metal recycling, compost, and trash that is none of the above (I tended to throw my used tissues in there).

    It was nice to come back to the US where I didn’t have to sort my trash beyond removing the pop cans.

    I should have known that I would have only had the briefest of respites…

  11. Yes, John. It a total imposition on America’s liberty to use three waste bins rather than one.

    Your dementia has gotten the worst of you.

  12. Another reason not to visit San Fran: the city that smells.

  13. This can is for lightly soiled toilet paper.

  14. Eventually, though, recycling became more like a civic duty and less like a moral imperative.

    Among San Franciscans, is there a difference?

  15. Hang on a minute. Compost is just decomposed organic material. If decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won’t decomposing in your backyard do the same?

    Hush now.

    Actually, in a properly covered and sealed landfill organic matter does not decompose. Or it can be allowed to decompose and with proper venting the methane gas can be collected and used for fuel, although sewage treatment plants are a better source. Some sewage treatment plants run almost entirely on power generated with the methane gas they produce.

    I’m not really sure about how much usable methane can be collected from a landfill. And I’m too lazy to look it up.

  16. shecky, yes, that’s what the word ‘mandatory’ means. It is an imposition on liberty.

    How about I make it mandatory that you stop being a fuckbag?

  17. Fascitis, this article might go some way to answer your questions. Apparently, Minnesota actually makes a profit off its recycling, although less so nowadays due to reduced amounts of lucrative newsprint in the recyling stream.

    http://minnesotaindependent.com/36569/newspapers-recycling-newsprint

  18. Sorry, that should be Minneapolis, not Minnesota.

  19. Ok, lemme make sure I understand…

    If we don’t eat the food and throw it out, it ends up in a landfill and causes methane evilness.

    If we eat all the food, we “evacuate” it causing methane gas. (I’m sure we can argue about a bean to methane ratio and then regulate them separately)

    If we compost it, evil again.

    So, I guess the answer is to not grow any food or eat it. That works.

  20. John, relax. I’m almost always on your side around here, but this is not that big a deal. For one thing, SF has had the three-bin system for years: blue for recyclable, green for compostable, black for remaining garbage. The system is not new the way the article says. What’s new are the fines.

    Also, KMW’s dates are off: not counting the recycling pushes for the major wars, the modern trend began in the late ’60s and took off in the ’70s.

  21. If decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won’t decomposing in your backyard do the same?

    Sure, but if you have to go to a lot of pointless effort, you have the right to feel morally superior to those environment hating Bush voters who guiltlessly just send their garbage to the landfill.

  22. @Isaac–“Some sewage treatment plants run almost entirely on power generated with the methane gas they produce.”

    My wife’s father spent his career in waste water treatment, and as it turns out MOST plants in the US are 75% or more power self-sufficient.

    Oh, and Seattle has had the 3 can system for months already.

  23. By the way in the Italian towns I’ve been in they have no individual trash collection. Residents are required to carry their waste to public waste stations, one every few blocks or so, and deposit it in the various bins.

    There are separate bins for each color of glass as well as metals and paper and so on.

    We’ve got a long way to go before we reach that level of regimentation.

  24. Life imitates Bullshit.

  25. (Sorry mom, I know that was probably really annoying)

    KMW – 19 years old?

    I had the same experience as her and I’m 25.

    How about I make it mandatory that you stop being a fuckbag?

    That’s a bridge too far.

  26. I’m so glad I live in a suburb of Houston. We will be the last place in America to give a rat’s ass about any recycling beyond a purely voluntary effort.

  27. Thanks for the number, Dello. I didn’t want to overstate the case but I though it was somewhere in that neighborhood.

  28. Hang on a minute. Compost is just decomposed organic material. If decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won’t decomposing in your backyard do the same?

    Yes, and at least in a landfill they can burn the methane in gas turbines, converting to CO2, which while a greenhouse gas is much less potent than CH4, and getting some free energy out of it.

  29. Garbage collection is virtually mandatory in just about every city in the country. Yes, that’s why Americans are falling to slavery. What Would John Galt Do?

    C’mon you guys. The crazyness around these parts is just getting too thick. Or maybe it’s the stench of that uncollected waste that you freedom loving refuseniks are hoarding from Obama bin Lyin’s prying eyes.

  30. Garbage collection is virtually mandatory in just about every city in the country.

    If you mean sorting your garbage, then I’m going to need a link.

  31. @John – yeah, your garbage and what you do with it is your business. once you decide to pay the city to carry it off and store it for you, it’s theirs.

  32. My apartment building in Seattle has just started (purely voluntary) composting. The thing is, it doesn’t make much sense. It still releases methane, and then it has to still be transported from here to somewhere that will use it such as a farm or a vineyard.

    If people want to do it voluntarily, that’s cool, but please don’t pretend it’s anything but purely symbolic and possibly even counterproductive, if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gases. One garbage truck going to the dump uses a lot less gas than several trucks going to multiple farm/vineyard locations.

  33. And it is a total imposition on people’s freedom and privacy. Fuck you. My garbage, what I eat and what I throw away is none of your damned business.

    Who owns the landfill? You?

    If you don’t throw your trash into a landfill, where will you put it? In my yard? Your yard? Will I have to smell it? Will the flies it attracts come into my house? If you keep it in your yard and I live right next to it, then it’s my business.

    If you send it to a landfill, then it’s the landfill owner’s business how you deliver it to them.

  34. If you mean sorting your garbage, then I’m going to need a link.

    Garbage sorting wasn’t even mandatory in my Kommune (kind of like a county) in Denmark when I was there. I did however keep my beer cans for my highly impressive beer pyramid.

  35. “I mean for one thing, this is San Francisco, so this is probably the least crazy and restrictive thing they have done this week.”

    I can’t really argue with that. But it kinda proves my point.

    As far as the points about who owns the landfill, this applies to everyone. I ought to be able to contract with my own landfill operator and not have the government telling me what to do with my food.

    Beyond that, as pointed out above, this is a pointless gesture. Is it the end of the world? No. But it is one step closer to a world where what we eat, what temp we keep our thermostat, what car we drive, what clothes we wear and nearly every other personal decision we have is made by the government, which is of course exactly what the people behind this measure want to happen.

  36. What’s the GHG release involved in producing plastic garbage bins?

  37. Actually, Tim, burning CH4 is going to give you a hell of a lot of water vapor too.

    And of course, water vapor’s harmless.

    No, wait, some scientists think water vapor’s an even worse green house gas than CO2.

    And we thought CO2 was harmless for years, too.

    🙂

    For what it’s worth, all of my food scraps go in a compost heap. A few months and I get the nicest organic fertilizer you could want.

    It’s not a religion, just something that lowers my gardening budget. And something that I think kinda needs to stay voluntary.

  38. Water vapor is in equilibrium with liquid water. You’re not going to increase the total water vapor content of the global atmosphere (for very long) by simply pumping out water vapor. It will eventually condense and no longer be a GHG.

  39. Also, for what it’s worth, Seminole County, Florida has one of the most extensive recycling programs in the state. It’s also the most Republican dominated.

    They look like a bunch of hippies compared to their Democrat run neighbour, the City of Orlando.

    And of course Florida’s state government is one of the most Republican in the nation and recycling is mandated for every local government.

    As note above some barely meet the minimum requirements.

    Oh, good point, Oatwhore. Hmmm, what an interesting name.

  40. I’ve never understood why garbage can’t be separated at some central location rather than forcing residents to do it much less productively. It really seems to me to more about the “feel good” effect than anything else.

  41. The impression I’ve always had is that for anything other than aluminum it’s a net resource/energy waste to bother recycling. Depending somewhat on local conditions. But I’ve never looked at anything rigorous demonstrating that.

    There was a decent market for shipping scrap paper overseas to be used in packaging, but it’s been hurt by the current recession.

  42. Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system, collected scraps will be turned into compost that helps area farms and vineyards flourish.

    by decomposing and relesing methane gas.

    I know others have already pointed the above out, but one would thing that the fucking newspaper would point it out to their (mostly) sciece illiterate readers.

    And Isaac has it right. When I had a yard, I did composting for the exact same reason. It’s free fertilizer. It should be voluntary.

    If nobody has been caught stealing compost yet, I’d be surprised.

  43. and I don’t preview on Fridays.

  44. Jesus, these are the kinds of bullshit things that make us smart folks on the left cringe. It must be how Palin makes smart folks on the right cringe (when they’re not jerking off to her swimsuit pics…)

  45. why aren’t they capturing and selling the methane like some landfills currently do?

  46. I’ve never understood why garbage can’t be separated at some central location rather than forcing residents to do it much less productively.

    That’s how Seminole County does it. You get one bin. You can request additional ones, but they’re all the same color. Green.

    Some other local governments have two, one for paper and one for bottles and cans.

    There was a decent market for shipping scrap paper overseas to be used in packaging, but it’s been hurt by the current recession.

    At one point that was about the only thing in the shipping containers on those ships going back to China, from what I’ve heard.

  47. ” I don’t preview on Fridays.”
    shabbos shabbat?

  48. but one would thing that the fucking newspaper would point it out to their (mostly) sciece illiterate readers.

    I suspect that most journos are not that much more science literate that their readers.

    [gratuitous cheap shot]Especially ones that write articles about recycling.[/gratuitous cheap shot]

  49. MNG, I have come to believe that a sensible recycling program has a place in any well run waste management program. Some practices make more sense some places than others, and some are just stupid anywhere. Composting and/or mulching yard waste makes sense, food scraps don’t make the cut. Except as noted above for the individual gardener willing to do the work.

    For better or worse waste management in any urban or suburban area has become a government function, for public health reasons among others.

    Contracting out the collection and haulage will probably reduce costs but I accept the fact that it will still be goverment run in the end.

  50. So, to echo a few others, I don’t understand how this reduces the amount of methane which is produced by the decomposition of food scraps.

    MNG,

    I would imagine that this ordinance will have a lot of people buying food disposal units.

  51. Isaac,

    For better or worse waste management in any urban or suburban area has become a government function, for public health reasons among others.

    I don’t see any reason why such services can’t be run privately, and run by multiple entities to boot.

  52. Seward
    I don’t want to speak for Isaac, but perhaps the government should supply some kind of mandate or inducement and then private firms should compete to actually do it…

  53. Eight years ago, my wreched ex-spouse moved to Ess Eff expecting utopia.

    HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, stupid bitch.

  54. “Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash bins, including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for compost-everything from banana peels to coffee grounds.”

    I wonder how much oil and energy went into the making of all those extra bins?

  55. Isaac,

    Also, I have personal experience of garbage services being exclusively run by private entities.

  56. It’s not that I am against this sort of thing, but mandating it is what turns a lot of normally pre-disposed folks off to this sort of thing.

    I think maybe incentive programs might be better…

  57. “This is pretty much having your asinine roommate, who thinks he knows everything about the environment despite having no scientific training, dictate your behaviour to you.”

    Fuckin’ tell me about it…

  58. Hang on a minute. Compost is just decomposed organic material. If decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won’t decomposing in your backyard do the same?

    Only if you do it wrong. Methane is produced by anaerobic bacteria such as would be present in a landfill. But, if the city is running a properly aerated compost pile it should greatly reduce methane emissions.

  59. erm, an incentive program, while ostensibly less forceful, still forces people to subsidize what are essentially futile efforts.

    This provision is offensive on two bases: it forces people (that’s one) to engage in futile, feel-good efforts (that’s two), under penalty of the law.

    An incentive program would only negligibly solve the latter, but not really.

  60. Oh, I almost forgot to say that Penn & Teller did a great episode on recycling. As I recall they did one of their “studies” and they were able to get at least some people to sort their waste into like eight or ten bins.

  61. TAO
    Is this part of your “since we can’t make India and China do anything it’s stupid for us to do anything” line of thought?

  62. Gimlet,

    It’s been 8 years. Time to let go of that anger. Learn to love again.

  63. If they don’t like having three trash cans, then they can move.

  64. I don’t see any reason why such services can’t be run privately, and run by multiple entities to boot.

    Political inertia is the primary reason. There is still a strong attachment to the notions of natural monopolies and economies of scale.

    One loses one’s outrage at government when one has well run municipal services.

    Of course, the Sherriff is still a prick. But he runs his department better than most. And absent the WOD and every other nanny intrusion that has resulted in the criminalization of just about everything he and his deputies would likely be splendid fellows (and ladies).

    I try to save my outrage for real abuses. I tend to find the antics of hippies in San Fransissyco (as my former boss whose mother an sister live there calls it) mildly amusing.

    I saw the P&T episode. I really like Penn but his humor does, – how can one say it? – tend to be less than subtle.

    And, of course, in the end the only reason for recycling is to reduce costs. If it doesn’t reduce costs, it’s not worth it.

  65. Thanks, Joel.

  66. I mean, it’s gotta start somewhere…

  67. MNG – no, I’m just saying that a subsidy for a sorting program at the central level isn’t terribly different from a mandatory yet decentralized sorting program. And incentivizing people to do this at the user level is essentially building artificial costs that (surprise!) would penalize the poor, who have less time on their hands to sort their own refuse.

    I mean, it’s gotta start somewhere…

    That’s a good rationale for rights and ending unjust institutions. I don’t see CO2 production as inherently immoral or even immediately (or even long-term!) imperiling, threatening or aggressive.

  68. Isaac,

    I think by political inertia you probably mean all the lessons of public choice economics.

    And, of course, in the end the only reason for recycling is to reduce costs. If it doesn’t reduce costs, it’s not worth it.

    Well local and county governments involve themselves in all sorts of costly things that don’t reduce costs. I like how I heard recently PJ O’Rourke put it (and here I paraphrase), it isn’t that local government is any better than the federal government, it is that the former is easier to run away from. 🙂

  69. “I don’t see CO2 production as inherently immoral or even immediately (or even long-term!) imperiling, threatening or aggressive.”

    Yea, I know, but no offense if the majority of Americans go with all those hard science guys that disagree and not with the law student on this one!

  70. *eyeroll*. I mean to the level of doing anything about it. It is not sufficiently imperiling, threatening or aggressive to lead to the inevitable limiting of production, trade wars and possible, actual wars.

  71. I think by political inertia you probably mean all the lessons of public choice economics.

    Yeah, that’s it.

  72. “a subsidy for a sorting program at the central level isn’t terribly different from a mandatory yet decentralized sorting program”

    I see your point, but I see important differences between a program where I can refuse and lose out on some benefit and one where refusal is met with a punishment. One doesn’t give me extra, the other takes from what I got…

  73. MNG,

    Well, I myself am not particularly comfortable with thousand and hundred year predictions. Indeed, it was similarly complicated mathematical modeling by regulators and banks that made similar predictions about the nature of bank assets that was part of the problem with financial sector’s troubles. A lot of that modeling included things like thousand and four thousand year risk predictions.

  74. by the way, the majority of Americans agree with me. There are other, more pressing problems. Global warming ranks dead last.

    I see important differences between a program where I can refuse and lose out on some benefit and one where refusal is met with a punishment. One doesn’t give me extra, the other takes from what I got

    Except that the “benefits” have to be funded by somebody, and they will be funded by people who “refuse” to participate, meaning that it’s “taking from what you got” anyway.

  75. Isaac,

    Yeah, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

  76. Well, saying that it’s not worth wars is not to say its not worth taking some measures to limit it.

    Getting China to follow our copyright laws is not worth a war in my book, but I’m all for the many lesser options available to get them to do so…

  77. when they’re not jerking off to her swimsuit pics…

    I would but I can’t get her voice out of my head long enough to sprout a sapling, if you know what I mean.

  78. MNG,

    So, that would be my primary complaint with the sort of climate model predictions I have been seeing. A hundred year prediction on any subject ought to make one raise an eyebrow or two.

  79. “by the way, the majority of Americans agree with me.”

    That’s nice. But we have even better gauges of public opinion called ‘elections’ and the side saying we are going to do something about all this won the last few…

    “they will be funded by people who “refuse” to participate”

    But it tends to be spread out, as long as it’s less than the punishment would take, then its better.

  80. MNG – look at the international kerfuffle over online poker, something arguably not that important in the “overall picture” to your everyday Joe and Joan. We cannot even get nations to agree to that. We cannot get nations to effectively enforce out copyright laws, but you still want to unilaterally decrease American productivity and cross your fingers that China’s going to do the same thing.

  81. Seward
    I won’t debate the science of it, because ultimately neither you nor I are qualified to evaluate it worth a hoot.

    Policmakers have to canvass expert opinions on these kinds of things and make choices. They can’t always wait for 100% consensus, not do I want them “figuring it out for themselves.”

  82. But we have even better gauges of public opinion called ‘elections’ and the side saying we are going to do something about all this won the last few..

    What?! That poll is a poll about where the legislative and executive priorities ought to be set. It is not enough to say “we elected Democrats so we give them carte blanche permission to do anything and everything about global warming.”

    There are a bevy of reasons why people voted for Democrats last election. You cannot just look at the election results and draw out the conclusion that the people gave a mandate to do something about global warming. The priorities poll puts paid to that.

  83. MNG,

    Not that public opinion means squat outside of some fairly discrete areas…

    …but what happened in the last two elections doesn’t say much about what most people think about climate change as a priority. Indeed, that is part of the problem with democracy in a really large country; it tends to just mow over the diversity of thought in any coalition to achieve victory, while also putting one faction of such a coalition in charge once that victory comes about.

  84. TAO
    If bad things happen from increased C02 emissions, then the lower they are the better. Us cutting back ours makes them lower than they would be if we had not done so, regardless of what China and India do. As I said, it’s a start.

    As for the election, the winners were quite frank about what they were going to do in this area when they ran, and they are going to do it. If the people were much opposed they could have voted otherwise. It must be that even those that think it not important or don’t agree with them must not have had very strong feelings about it…

  85. MNG,

    Policmakers have to canvass expert opinions on these kinds of things and make choices. They can’t always wait for 100% consensus, not do I want them “figuring it out for themselves.”

    Not to be too cynical, but what policymakers do is look for a crisis so that it can help them achieve their primary goal; election or re-election or appointment or re-appointment. This is why time and time again you see policymakers jump for policies which can paint them as the good guys, where they can aid discrete populations, etc.

  86. Yea, I know, but no offense if the majority of Americans go with all those hard science guys that disagree and not with the law student on this one!

    Not to be too much of a dick, but I wouldn’t call climate science “hard” science though MNG. I mean climate models aren’t quite the same as when I measure some light scattering in my lab …

  87. The impression I’ve always had is that for anything other than aluminum it’s a net resource/energy waste to bother recycling.

    A good rule of thumb is this: if the local bums aren’t searching through trash cans looking for the stuff, it is currently not cost-effective to recycle it. If it was somebody would be buying it. That being said, I have not put a food item in the trash can for years; it is too easy to compost and give yourself a self-righteous pat on the back. It is easier still when you have a goat farm behind your fence. I can throw the entire Thanksgiving leftover pile, including turkey carcass over the fence and it will be gone in minutes.

    [Italian] residents are required to carry their waste to public waste stations, one every few blocks or so, and deposit it in the various bins.

    There are separate bins for each color of glass as well as metals and paper and so on.

    I’ve been to cities all over the United States that do that.

  88. If the people were much opposed they could have voted otherwise. It must be that even those that think it not important or don’t agree with them must not have had very strong feelings about it.

    Bullshit. I’m sure many people voted for Obama thinking he would stop killing brown people, which figures as far, far worse than global warming to most people. (Of course, he lied about that, too, big surprise.)

  89. MNG,

    Anyway, as much as I like chatting, I have other stuff to get on with. Have a better one.

  90. And ranking action on global warming low as a priority doesn’t mean disagreement on the need to take action in a particular way, btw.

    I wouldn’t expect public opinion to be too deep on this, as the negative consequences of not acting are, as suggested by those who make this claim, not immediate…That kind of thing tends to engender lukewarm feelings…

    But a good leader can’t always be that way. Our leaders have a duty to protect us from what they, with expert opinion, conclude is a terrible, but non-immediate, threat.

    Of course, in a democracy, not in actual opposition to such action by the people…But that’s not present here.

  91. Seward
    Always nice debating with you, take care

  92. dbcooper
    I don’t think you’d be a dick in saying that, but you wouldn’t know much about what your talking about. The conclusions of these scientists have been supported by professional science organizations that we would certainly agree are “hard” scientists aplenty, and who would know better how to evaluate the claims of the field of climate science better than anyone here.

  93. “And of course Florida’s state government is one of the most Republican in the nation and recycling is mandated for every local government.”

    Hmm- I might be misunderstanding what you mean by this (unless it’s a recent development), but there are certainly some good-sized municipalities in FL that don’t mandate (or even have) curbside recycling. St Pete, for one. Unless they instituted it in the last year or so.

  94. If bad things happen from increased C02 emissions, then the lower they are the better.

    No, not necessarily. Actually, not at all. Assume that the United States is able to cut its CO2 production from 22m to 20m (which is almost a ten percent cut). Not only is that a commensurate 10% cut production (or increase in the cost of doing business), but that 2m cut will probably not achieve anything in terms of AGW. If there’s a critical mass of CO2 cuts necessary to achieve a certain goal, it may be that the 2m cut achieves nothing other than to place the United States at a competitive disadvantage and a transfer of wealth from this nation to other nations who haven’t undergone such draconian measures.

  95. The conclusions of these scientists have been supported by professional science organizations that we would certainly agree are “hard” scientists aplenty, and who would know better how to evaluate the claims of the field of climate science better than anyone here.

    lol. I’ll expect you to defer to the “hard” science of economics and economists then, from now on.

  96. If your critical mass theory is true, then yes. At least you were good enough to use the words “if” and “may.”

    However, there is a “getting the ball rolling” part to this.

    Consider Prohibition. In one sense, towns that declared themselves dry could have been seen as wasting their time, because other towns would just increase their drinking, or folks could just drive to the non-dry town. But the process has to start somewhere. By declaring your town dry you at least cut down on the drinking that would have gone on there were it legal there (some people might decline to drive to the next town, etc). And it illustrates a change to other towns. It affects public opinion. Sooner you later a majority of towns are doing it, and then the national government is in a stronger position to do something…

  97. Us cutting back ours makes them lower than they would be if we had not done so, regardless of what China and India do. As I said, it’s a start.

    That’s not true, if the activity being reduced is an industrial activity that simply shifts its location.

    And “it’s a start” is not an argument for action. If you want to start expropriating property and limiting economic activity, it damn well better be for an effort that works, or has some chance of working. If the very models you’re relying on to justify your policy say that your corrective action won’t make a damn bit of difference in the end, then your corrective action is not justified.

    And ranking action on global warming low as a priority doesn’t mean disagreement on the need to take action in a particular way, btw.

    The reverse is also true. Acknowledging that the claims made by climate scientists have a general scientific validity does not constitute an endorsement of any and all corrective policies.

  98. Aha MNG, but I am qualified to read the literature and interpret the quality of the modelling and make qualitative comparisons with the claims. You are making the logical fallacy of assuming that since there are “hard” scientists, such as classical physicists, involved that climate science itself must be a “hard” science. This is a mistake that many people who do not have much experimental scientific experience could easily make – it is really an extension of the argument via authority fallacy.

    And their are quite a few eminently qualified fellows who would agree with my “AGW may very well exist but climate predictions can be rather dubious and valid publications that do not fit the established narrative can be overlooked” stance.

  99. It is quite amusing to see folks here rave about the liberal ignorance of the “findings” of economics, and then turn around and provide such heightened skepticism to the findings of most climate scientists, findings which have been endorsed by pretty much every major scientific professional organization in the developed world…

  100. “If bad things happen from increased C02 emissions, then the lower they are the better. Us cutting back ours makes them lower than they would be if we had not done so, regardless of what China and India do. As I said, it’s a start.”

    This isn’t true. If we push production to China it might actually result in higher emissions. Beyond that you’re completely ignoring the fact that there might be some trade-offs involved. If cutting emissions by a certain amount prevents a very small, perhaps unmeasurable harm, but causes a much larger harm, then it is not “better”, as far as I’m concerned. So, even granting you all your premises, what you’re saying doesn’t make much sense.

  101. By the way, on the topic of the thread, I wasn’t able to determine via a quick Google search whether San Francisco’s residential garbage pickup is municipal or private.

    If it’s private, then the policy is unjustified and I agree with John’s somewhat heated opposition to it.

    If it’s municipal, then they can pretty much collect the garbage any damn way they want, really – that’s the downside to empowering municipalities to provide monopoly services.

  102. “The reverse is also true. Acknowledging that the claims made by climate scientists have a general scientific validity does not constitute an endorsement of any and all corrective policies.”

    Of course, I hope I’ve not implied otherwise, as either a normative or empirical matter.

    “if the activity being reduced is an industrial activity that simply shifts its location.”

    Sort of a “zero-sum” industrial environment, eh?

    “but I am qualified to read the literature and interpret the quality of the modelling and make qualitative comparisons with the claims”

    Perhaps so, but again, forgive me if I think that the scientific organizations who have looked at this and come to different conclusions are right here and you may be wrong…

  103. baldanders

    The state has mandated that all municipalities in Florida adopt recycling programs. The deadline for 75% compliance is something 2020 so if St Pete isn’t recycling yet they’re just behind everyone else.

    As I have said, the only justification for recycling in my book is cost reduction and the only incentive should be, your taxes will bew lower if you recycle.

  104. “If cutting emissions by a certain amount prevents a very small, perhaps unmeasurable harm, but causes a much larger harm, then it is not “better””

    Well fucking duh! Do you really think I would find that causing a much larger harm in order to prevent a very small harm is correct? The debate is over whether this is the case, and as I’ve said it’s a debate few here are likely qualified to answer.

  105. Hell, I’d say there is more disagreement among economic analysis over the wisdom of the stimulus than there is over the findings of the IPCC. In fact, there may be more for it than against!

  106. MNG – you have not understood my argument. I am not saying that AGW does not exist. What I am saying is that Climate Sciences are not “hard sciences” such as physics, materials science, etc. It would be a rather bold claim that climate scientists can achieve the level of rigour that the traditional “hard sciences” can achieve in a laboratory setting. This I do not think is a claim made by these scientific organizations you refer to.

  107. It is quite amusing to see folks here rave about the liberal ignorance of the “findings” of economics, and then turn around and provide such heightened skepticism to the findings of most climate scientists, findings which have been endorsed by pretty much every major scientific professional organization in the developed world…

    Look, it seems reasonable to me that since planets with different atmospheres experience different climates, that changing the composition of the atmosphere has the potential to change the climate.

    But the problem is devising and measuring the performance of a corrective policy, because then we move pretty strongly into the realm of the non-falsifiable.

    If we take no action and global warming doesn’t happen, AGW advocates can and will just say, “It hasn’t happened yet, but it’s about to happen” or “It hasn’t happened yet because of that volcano last year” or “It hasn’t happened yet because of the strong El Nino this year” or whatever. Proof that AGW is occurring to the extent predicted in the models can be indefinitely deferred.

    If we take any particular action and AGW happens anyway, advocates of increased government power will just say, “Well, we should have been given more power, so then we would have done ‘X’, and that would have made the difference and stopped AGW”.

    If we take some action or set of actions and AGW doesn’t happen, then AGW advocates will stand up and say, “We’re heroes! We stopped global warming!” but it will be difficult or impossible to say if their claims are true; we will have no way of ultimately knowing what the climate would have been if we had not proceeded as we did.

    Do you see the sort of quandary we encounter, once we start trying to manage a system larger than our own civilization?

  108. There’s also something to be said about having “clean hands” yourself (though as a utilitarian it’s hard for me to put too much stock in it).

    Refusing to own slaves in the South may have been met with “well, someone else will just buy those slaves, your refusal won’t make a dent in the overall slave population and you are putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage”, but I would still hope I would have done so…

  109. And, of course, in the end the only reason for recycling is to reduce costs. If it doesn’t reduce costs, it’s not worth it.

    One of the first (and happiest) things Bloomberg did when he got in office was to cut the number of recycling bins from three to two. He said the city was losing money by recycling paper and so we’re not gonna do it. That didn’t last long. I dunno if he was pressured to do it by busybodies or if it really became “worth it”, but soon we were back to three bins.

  110. db
    I don’t want to get bogged down in a fruitless debate over which sciences deserve the label hard and which do not. I submit that certainly the climate sciences are at the very least as “hard” as the economic sciences upon which libertarians in particular hang so much on, but my point has been that scientific organizations that you and I would readily agree are made up of “hard” scientists have examined the claims and findings of groups like the IPCC and found them satisfactory….As I said, excuse me if I take their word on this over dissenters…

  111. Well fucking duh! Do you really think I would find that causing a much larger harm in order to prevent a very small harm is correct?

    Yes.

    You just openly said that the US should initiate policies that restrict greenhouse gases, even if it makes no difference to AGW, and even if other nations don’t go along, because it would “get the ball rolling”.

    Since doing so would have negative effects on people in the United States, you did in fact advocate imposing a harm greater than the harm you prevent. [By definition, since you want to do this even if it prevents no harm at all.] As a “start”.

  112. fluffy
    You really don’t think these concerns were brought up, considered and rejected for good reason by groups like the IPCC and the many that agreed with their findings? That all of these diverse scientists could not “see” that we are dealing with non-falsifiable claims?

    Or maybe they know more than you (or I) whether these are non-falsifiable claims?

  113. a.. barge cruised from New York to Belize and back, looking for a place to dump its load?

    [insert your dirtiest joke here] [badum-bing] …why I gotta tell ya

    someone had to go there, although I only went halfway

    (thats what she said) [badum-bing]

  114. Wrong fluffy, first, I’m not sure that this is all it will do (your post as well as TAO’s is littered with “ifs” and “buts”), but secondly if it in fact “gets the ball rolling” then it may address a greater harm than that which would occur from the measures to be implemented.

    C’mon, that wasn’t hard.

  115. Refusing to own slaves in the South may have been met with “well, someone else will just buy those slaves, your refusal won’t make a dent in the overall slave population and you are putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage”, but I would still hope I would have done so…

    True, but in that case, the act of owning even one slave, undertaken by even one person in the world, would have been an evil it would be worthwhile to undo. And thus any one person freeing his slaves would be a good.

    In the case of AGW, every person’s individual production of CO2 is not an evil it would be worthwhile to undo. If all of humanity but me died in a plague this year, I could make as much CO2 as I wanted for the rest of my life and it would not have any impact on the climate whatsoever. The production of greenhouse gases is not an individual evil analogous to owning slaves because AGW is the result of aggregate greenhouse gas production, not any individual’s production.

  116. In Austin, TX, we have single stream recycling. You can fill your recycling bin with just about anything but plastic bags, pizza boxes or food scraps. I’m amazed at how soon the bin fills up and how empty our trash can is.

    However, there’s a bit of a whoops. We didn’t build a recycling facility so the stuff is trucked hundreds of miles away every other week.

    Keen observation from writer who noted that what street folx are collecting is a clear sign of what’s profitable to recycle.

    If gov’t wants to raise some big money and help street folx simultaneously, they’d put a deposit tax (maybe 5 or 10 cents) on plastic bottles of water. People who buy this stuff (why?) won’t care about a slight price increase. My guess is that the income to government would far exceed Pigovian taxes on cigarettes.

    Every other year or so we plant veggies and thus make a compost pile. Should I expect to be jailed?

    Ah, San Francisco, hub of fascism.

  117. And this could be said of almost any predicted event we may want to address. Think of Social Security. Under current projects it is supposed to be insolvent by some date (let’s say 2050, fuck if I keep up with that). Folks recommend fixing it.

    If we take action and it is fixed everyone will say, we fixed it, when the processes under the projections could have simply changed.

    If we take action and it is not fixed those evil pro-government types will just say “we needed to take more aggressive action.”

    If we take no action and it gets fixed then those bad dudes will just say “it’s just around the corner.”

    It’s an intractable problem involving non-falsifiable claims!

  118. You really don’t think these concerns were brought up, considered and rejected for good reason by groups like the IPCC and the many that agreed with their findings? That all of these diverse scientists could not “see” that we are dealing with non-falsifiable claims?

    Or maybe they know more than you (or I) whether these are non-falsifiable claims?

    The IPCC really doesn’t make any claims about changes to prediction models for AGW based on minor public policy changes. It’s not that precision an instrument. The science is genuine, but it’s much more humble than that.

    Wrong fluffy, first, I’m not sure that this is all it will do (your post as well as TAO’s is littered with “ifs” and “buts”), but secondly if it in fact “gets the ball rolling” then it may address a greater harm than that which would occur from the measures to be implemented.

    C’mon, that wasn’t hard.

    Wrong.

    You simply don’t get to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of any particular policy by making reference to policy changes that aren’t part of your plan, but which you hope might take place if people are encouraged by your “start”.

    That’s crap.

  119. What if it could be shown that in freeing your slaves your production would simply be “taken up” by those who did not (with their competitive advantage), who would then export more slaves, in fact the exact number you freed (since they are taking up your slack)?

    I’d still like to hope I’d not own them.

    Given the aggregate realities of CO2 production and its likely effects, to excessively continue to produce it, knowing it will add to this aggregate, is a wrong.

  120. Damn. The priests only ever asked you to show up for an hour’s lecture at church on Sunday.

    The progressives want us ALL to live in the monastery.

  121. “You simply don’t get to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of any particular policy by making reference to policy changes that aren’t part of your plan, but which you hope might take place if people are encouraged by your “start”.”

    Like the dry town in my example? Were they fools?

    They won in the end (well, for a while)

    And, as I’ve said, thats only one reason to support this, the other is that your ifs and buts are wrong, and decreases by one industrial nation will not inevitably be offset by matching increases by others but will lead to actual reductions overall

  122. MNG – again, Fluffy dismantled your slavery analogy pretty well. Individual CO2 production cannot, by definition, be an individual wrong analogous to slaveholding.

    This just is not a case of “every little bit helps” like cancer donations or something.

  123. Actually throughout much of history ecclesastical courts and such enforced a host of f*cked up priestly laws on the populace on Mon-Sat as well…

  124. decreases by one industrial nation will not inevitably be offset by matching increases by others but will lead to actual reductions overall

    Again, it is a fact that, absent a drastic cut in CO2 emissions from the United States, that unilateral action on behalf of the US will do nothing to solve the problem! You’re asking the United States to damage itself, regardless of what the other “prisoners” do because confessing is the “right thing to do.”

  125. I guess I’ll just repeat things if folks won’t read them:

    “Given the aggregate realities of CO2 production and its likely effects, to excessively continue to produce it, knowing it will add to this aggregate, is a wrong.”

  126. I read it the first time, MNG, and I’m disputing it. If the wrong is a global aggregate, it is not demonstrable that an individual nation’s contribution to that aggregate is wrong.

  127. “Again, it is a fact that, absent a drastic cut in CO2 emissions from the United States, that unilateral action on behalf of the US will do nothing to solve the problem!”

    It is? Where did you learn that? I hate to be the guy asking for citations, but that’s a pretty crucial empirical claim for resolution of this debate, so citation, puh-leeze (and please, no AEI or such)

  128. Really?

    If the growing aggregate effect of producing X is going to harm us all, then it is not wrong for an individual to, knowing that, to excessively produce X?

    That’s incredible!

  129. “They won in the end (well, for a while)”

    Really? I mean they might have won in the sense that they were able to get a policy they wanted enacted as law, but they lost completely in terms of achieving what they ostensibly wanted to achieve with that policy. People may well have drunk more, and more destructively, during Prohibition. And you’ll note that the moral suasion you’re so fond of didn’t have much effect on Canada.

  130. The impression I’ve always had is that for anything other than aluminum it’s a net resource/energy waste to bother recycling. Depending somewhat on local conditions. But I’ve never looked at anything rigorous demonstrating that.

    Glass goes up and down a lot, but is sometimes cost effective, too.

    I liked swillfredo pareto heuristic. Those guys have a real incentive to know what pays at any given time.

  131. Let’s assume there is a water shortage in the town. No one person’s use of water excessively will make the water go below the water line (or whatever that point is) and destroy the entire supply forever. The effects of aggregate excessive use will do it in though.

    It would not be wrong for an individual, knowing that, to wash his car three times a day?

    Incredible!

  132. “People may well have drunk more, and more destructively, during Prohibition.”

    They drank less overall. Liver deaths went down. Etc.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060972610/reasonmagazinea-20/

  133. well, by that logic, the aggregate paying of taxes makes us all individually responsible for the Iraq War.

    Look, most of the IPCC reports I have read state that it’s impossible, absent drastic economic and quality-of-life reductions, for any one nation, sector or technology to reduce the effects of global warming.

    That just seems like common sense to me.

  134. Let’s assume there is a water shortage in the town. No one person’s use of water excessively will make the water go below the water line (or whatever that point is) and destroy the entire supply forever. The effects of aggregate excessive use will do it in though.

    It would not be wrong for an individual, knowing that, to wash his car three times a day?

    See, so what you’re saying is that if you don’t cut down your CO2 production to the lowest possible level, you are individually, morally responsible because you’re adding to the “aggregate”. I’ll hold you to that.

    Better get off the Internet, dude! You’re killing the planet!

  135. “well, by that logic, the aggregate paying of taxes makes us all individually responsible for the Iraq War.”

    ???? That seems , charitably, pretty inapt to the low-water town situation above…

  136. no sir. See, it’s not as if your individual taxes are going to pay for the Iraq War, but our aggregate taxation is. Ergo, you are individually contributing to the system, and it is immoral for you to do so.

  137. Just because we are not willing, or able to do everything we possibly can to address a wrong doesn’t mean we should’t do something.
    Of course it is immoral to not cut your carbon footprint down, unless you think that any cuts you make will be for some reason offset by subsequent increases by others (caused by your decision to cut them down).

    I mean, really, ain’t it immoral for that guy to continue to water his lawn?

    If it helps, I can make his water use involved in some courageous Randian capitalist enterprise…

  138. We pay our taxes under duress.

    The dude washing his car three times a day does not. Neither is they guy who refuses to do something about his carbon footpring.

    This is one of the reasons why it’s inapt.

  139. Hmm, either way I have to split. Nice chatting.

  140. “They drank less overall. Liver deaths went down. Etc.”

    That link doesn’t have much to say on the subject, though the book might. Anyway, let me ask you this. Do you think that the net effects of Prohibition were positive? I think that’s a pretty hard case to make.

    Your analogies to water shortages aren’t very apposite for a number of reasons. Among them is the fact that using water is generally going to reduce the amount of water available by a linear amount. Another is that a more appropriate question might be “If there’s a water shortage do you think that it would be better to wash your car three times a day, or to pay someone else to wash it three times a day.” That’s really just the tip of the iceberg though. The only reason to make analogies like this that I can see is to shift the ground of the debate to one where your arguments have more merit than they do when discussing carbon emissions.

  141. MNG | June 12, 2009, 3:33pm | #

    We pay our taxes under duress.

    The dude washing his car three times a day does not. Neither is they guy who refuses to do something about his carbon footpring.

    It would be easier for me to move to switzerland and pay my taxes to a neutral country than it would be to meaningfully lower my carbon footprint.

  142. but good to reiterate the point that we are taxed under duress.

  143. I would expect nothing less from the city of nutjobs. Way, way too much government involved in every aspect of ourlives folks. We need to vote them ALL out, each and every officeholder across the country, next election cycle. They are all, with rare exception, incompetent buffoons and need to go. New mantra: “yes we can – kick them to the curb.”

  144. Fluffy, SF garbage and recycling is contracted out to private firms: http://www.sfrecycling.com/

  145. Like the dry town in my example? Were they fools?

    Yes, they were. On multiple levels.

    Let’s assume there is a water shortage in the town. No one person’s use of water excessively will make the water go below the water line (or whatever that point is) and destroy the entire supply forever. The effects of aggregate excessive use will do it in though.

    It would not be wrong for an individual, knowing that, to wash his car three times a day?

    I favor the use of price as the mechanism to control consumption for all commodities.

    If the guy is willing to continue to pay the increasing price for water to put on his lawn, that’s his business and it is absolutely not an immoral choice to do so.

    In the case of AGW, if a legitimate plan could be put in place with a realistic chance of making a difference on greenhouse gas emissions world-wide, I can see myself agreeing to a carbon tax, if the was equally applied to each and every molecule of CO2 produced by everyone, with no exemptions, permits, “cap and trade” schemes, etc. That tax would effectively substitute for the absent price mechanism to control this externality – AND, once the tax was in place, if you wanted to just pay the tax and keep on producing the same amount of carbon as before, it would not be immoral to do so.

    It is? Where did you learn that? I hate to be the guy asking for citations, but that’s a pretty crucial empirical claim for resolution of this debate, so citation, puh-leeze (and please, no AEI or such)

    Call up any scientist who is a global warming advocate. Ask him if he can guarantee that global warming will be stopped if, say, the US cuts its emissions to 75% of its year 2000 total, and then keeps it there – but specify that you can’t give him any data at all about the emission growth rate in any other country. Try it.

  146. Call up any scientist who is a global warming advocate. Ask him if he can guarantee that global warming will be stopped if, say, the US cuts its emissions to 75% of its year 2000 total, and then keeps it there – but specify that you can’t give him any data at all about the emission growth rate in any other country.

    You don’t even need the uncertainty of rates in other countries. The models aren’t good enough for anyone to guarantee anything.

  147. @MNG
    Most climate scientists? Pretty much every major scientific professional organizaion? Care to provide your sources for these statements and the numbers behind them? I for one would prefer to not turn off my brain and critical reasoning based solely on the reason that “Three out of Four Scientists recomend Trident for their patients who chew gum”.

  148. Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas.

    And they don’t do this in your compost bin.

  149. “And they don’t do this in your compost bin.”

    Well, what they do in your compost bin isn’t really the question. But it should be noted, for the benefit of a few posters upthread, that they don’t do much of this if they are properly composted. At the scales I’m familiar with (which range from kitchen refuse to small industrial, but nowhere near as large as the facilities you’d need to compost SF’s waste stream) you really want your composting accomplished by aerobic organisms. Basically, this generates a lot of heat and does a lot of the work of sterilizing the compost for you. This doesn’t generate much methane, but it does generate CO2.

    I have nothing against composting- all other things equal I’m for it, and I’ve certainly done a lot of it, and used a lot of it. But my reasons have nothing to do with GHGs, and I’m not crazy about the idea of mandating it. I mean- there are a lot of things I think are good ideas, but if you mandated all of them you’d have a suffocatingly regulated society.

  150. Paul

    Joel H, at 1:32pm, provides and answer to your question.

    Seriously, It kind of helps if you read all the comments.

    Dammit, baldanders posted while I was composing my missive, making the whole thing almost pointless.

  151. Isaac: well, at least you kind of got me over the FL regulation issue. I’m glad I qualified that comment as much as I did (I did kind of have the sinking feeling that you might be discussing a mandate coming down the pipeline)- I have to admit that I don’t pay much attention to the antics of state governments these days. I split my time between too many places to pay attention to them all.

    Another commenter above (sorry, too lazy to find out which) suggested that methane could be captured from landfills. I do know quite a bit about small to medium scale composting facilities, but I’m afraid I know less about landfills. Still, my understanding is that he was correct about that. If that’s the case, and if it is widely done then, purely on the basis of GHGs, mandatory composting is counter-productive. In any case I find it really hard to believe that kitchen refuse is a significant source of greenhouse gases.

  152. Paul
    |Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast |and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse |gas.
    |
    |And they don’t do this in your compost bin.

    Actually in the first 10-15 year about 75% of food and yard waste fails to decompose. As Dr. William Rathje, who started The Garbage Project, states, “Degradation, next to Santa Claus, is our most popular myth,”

    The argument for composting is that a properly maintained compost process produces very little methane. It does however produce CO2, which the EPA has decided is “biogenic” CO2 (think magic pixie CO2) and thus shouldn’t count as a GHG. Of course that makes it difficult to compare the creation of GHGs between the two, but hey how can reality compete with Santa Claus and the Biogenic Fairy.

  153. “The argument for composting is that a properly maintained compost process produces very little methane.”

    Hmm- well, I think that is a very poor argument for composting. A much better argument is that we are short of soil amendments that are as good as compost. Like I said above, compost is generally a good thing, all other things being equal.

    But it’s important to recognize that there’s no way to get enough compost to fertilize all our fields. We are able to feed the global population because we are able to draw on stores of nitrogen that have been deposited over eons.

    Look, I grew up farming organic produce. By MNG’s standards none of you motherfuckers are at all qualified to argue with me. 😉 The thing is that you lose nitrogen over the complete cycle. You get some back from, of all things, lightning. But you get it back _slow_.

    This is a much bigger issue than global warming, IMHO. Agriculture is a bitch, from an environmental standpoint, and people who think that LISA is some sort of cure are fucking delusional. But we have to eat.. we have to eat. And beyond that, I’m not going to become a vegetarian. I have to eat meat. Or at least- I’m going to eat meat.

  154. I mean, really, ain’t it immoral for that guy to continue to water his lawn?

    Who knows. He may have a good reason. Maybe he hosts a soccer league for orphans every weekend.

    OK, that’s unlikely, but what you care about in this situation is aggregate water usage, correct? A great way to do that is to let the price of water reflect its availability. Most people will use less of it when it costs more. Sure, there might be a guy here or there who is buying up a bunch of it, but why should everybody be so interested in that’s guy’s ethical standing when he’s not having a significant effect on total water usage?

  155. Yes, please don’t call the water police on me as I go out to frolic in my sprinkler with my dragon pal figment and the professor. It’s been a long time. I’m coming home.

  156. Hi this is Caitlin Grey from Youth Radio in Oakland. We’re doing a story about San Francisco’s mandatory composting and we’re trying to find residents of San Francisco with different views about the new mandate. Would anyone be willing to be interviewed on this topic? If you are interested please email me at platenry007@hotmail.com or my producer Charlie at charlie@youthradio.org, or you can call Youth Radio at 510-251-1101 and ask for me (Caitlin) or Charlie.
    Thanks!
    Caitlin Grey (Youth Radio)

  157. This makes perfect sense! Bravo San Fran. Cities across Canada have been doing this for years, and with great success.

  158. 3. Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  159. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.